VOITH HYDRO PVT LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5722/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 August 2025AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to bonafide reasons. It held that the matter requires fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer as the NFAC did not deal with the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee mistakenly filed an appeal before the Pune Bench instead of the Delhi Bench, resulting in a delay. The Pune Bench dismissed the appeal for want of territorial jurisdiction and allowed the assessee to file before the Delhi Bench. The assessee's return of income had adjustments made by the CPC, and the appeal to the NFAC was decided without a meaningful opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer due to the NFAC not considering the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR
Hearing: 31/07/2025Pronounced: 31/07/2025

Assessee by None Department by Shri Abhishek Deval, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 O R D E R

PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM:

1.

The present appeal of the assessee is arising out from the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 23rd June 2024 having DIN No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1065939493(1) and relates to Assessment Year 2022-23.

2.

There is a delay of around 102 days in filing of the present appeal before the ITAT Delhi Benches, New Delhi. Perusal of the application in respect of condonation of delay would show that the assessee has mistakenly filed this appeal before the Pune Bench of the ITAT. Thereafter the Pune Bench, vide its order dated 7th November, 2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the jurisdiction of the assessee lies with Delhi Benches and not with Pune Benches. The Pune Bench of the ITAT while dismissing the appeal of the assessee, for the want of territorial jurisdiction, has granted opportunity to the assessee to file an appeal before the Delhi Benches. Considering the facts as coming out in the application for condonation of delay and the order of ITAT Voith Hydro (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT Pune Bench, we are of the firm view that the delay happened in filing of this appeal is to be condoned as there was a bonafide reason behind the delay.

3.

Today when the matter has been called up for hearing, nobody has appeared. It is pertinent to observe here that on the last date of hearing i.e. 28th July, 2025 Authorized Representative of the assessee namely one Ms. Gauri has appeared before the Bench and has requested the Bench to adjourn the matter for 31st July, 2025. Which means the matter has been adjourned as per the convenience of the assessee’s counsel. Be that as it may be since prime-facie this matter requires fresh adjudication at the end of lower authorities we are deciding the appeal on the basis of material available on record.

4.

At the outset, we observe that it is a case where certain adjustments have been made by the CPC while processing the return of income filed by the assessee. Against these adjustments, the assessee has filed appeal before NFAC and the Ld. NFAC has decided the appeal of the assessee without providing any meaningful opportunity to the assessee.

5.

Against the order of NFAC, the assessee has come up in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order under section 250 of the Act dated

23. June 2024 passed by the learned CIT(A) in pursuance of appeal filed against the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act dated

29. July 2023 issued by the learned AO on the following grounds, each of which is without prejudice to and independent of the others: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)/ learned AO: Ground of Appeal No. 1: General 1. erred in granting relief to the Appellant to the extent of Rs.7,06,87,975 instead of Rs.14,13,75,950 as prayed in the appeal; Ground of Appeal Nos. 2 to 4: Addition of marked to market gain on forward exchange contract based on incorrect reporting in the tax audit report filed online - Rs. 7,06,87,975 2. failed to appreciate that addition made by the learned AO in respect of disallowance of marked to market gain on forward exchange contract was merely on the basis of erroneous Voith Hydro (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT reporting of the gain as 'Increase in Profit instead of 'Decrease in profit under clause 13(e) of the tax audit report filed online 3. failed to appreciate that the Appellant has duly and correctly reduced the same while computing its business income and made necessary reporting at S. No. 3(b) of Part A OI: 4. failed to take cognizance of the Appellant's submissions including the certificate received from the tax auditor acknowledging the inadvertent mistake made in the tax audit report on the income tax portal Ground of Appeal No. 5: Levy of interest under section 243B of the Act-Rs.1,89,812 5 erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,89,812, Ground of Appeal No. 6: Levy of interest under section 243C of the Act - Rs.1,27,962 6 erred in levying interest under section 234C of the Act amounting to Rs.1,27,962; The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law.

6. In Ground No.1 is general in nature.

7. In Ground No.2 to 4, the assessee has contended that Ld. CPC has made an addition of Rs.7.06,87,975/- without appreciating that there was some error vis-a-vis the gains as reflected in the tax audit report. It is the next contention of the assessee that the CPC and NFAC has failed to appreciate that the Tax Auditors of the appellant had issued a certificate and acknowledged the inadvertent mistake made by them in the tax audit report.

8.

In Ground No.5 & 6, the assesse has challenged the levy of interest u/s 234B & 234C.

9.

The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the NFAC.

10.

After considering the materials available on record, we are of the view that this matter requires fresh adjudication at the end of jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), therefore, we restore this matter to the file of (JAO). The JAO will provide a meaningful opportunity to the assessee and then decide the grievance of the assessee in accordance with law. It is pertinent to note here that the NFAC

More judgments on Section 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →